Maybe Dawkins really SHOULD debate William Lane Craig... [Archive]

Maia

21st January 2010, 01:08 PM

So here's the thrilling Youtube video (part 1 of 4) challenging Richard Dawkins to a debate with William Lane Craig (also Dinesh D'Souza and some intelligent design nut or other):

n7ugyTJFvnQ

Warning: the music is appallingly bad.

The other parts are easy to find, and by the end of part 4, the author has really worked him/her/itself up into a frenzy by accusing Dawkins of being a slimy, yellow-bellied coward if he doesn't agree to a debate with Craig, D'Souza and ID Nut. Now, I have my problems with Dawkins, but I hardly think that's the reason why he isn't debating any of the above. For better or worse, he's the public voice of atheism these days. :rolleyes: And a thought came to me... it might actually be a good thing if he DID debate Craig, anyway.

How might this go? Well, there's a way to at least get some idea. There's a series of videos taken from Craig's "debate" with John Shelby Spong over the historicity of the Resurrection...

_r62LpPhLdQ

These are all trimmed to only show Craig, unfortunately, although I think this is the one that shows Spong trying hard not to lose it and break down laughing when Craig claims that "3 out of 4 Biblical scholars agree" that the Gospels are biographies. I think the reason why Spong debated Craig (if "debate" is taken to mean "used as a floor mop"), is that they're both clerics (as a bishop, Spong really outranks him, in fact), and they're challenging each other on exactly the same ground of expertise (Biblical scholarship, which Spong knew and Craig didn't but pretended to.) A lot of evangelicals foamed at the mouth over this one, but it wasn't too well known in the general public.

So why is it that Dawkins should debate Craig? It's not that he's up to some high standard of theology-- and Dawkins has debated those who are-- but precisely because a lot more people do know who William Lane Craig is and will pay attention to what is said, and because of the specific appeal that Craig does have. There would be no point in "debating" Pat Robertson, but Craig is a good example of someone who tries to pass himself off as a theological intellectual (he isn't.) This message needs to be debunked. Spong did a magnificent job, but he just isn't well-known enough to really get the message across. I'd rather have somebody as a spokesperson who isn't as snarky as Dawkins, quite honestly, but sometimes you have to work with what's available. :rolleyes: So yes, I think that he should do it.

Dunstan

21st January 2010, 01:37 PM

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Hitchens has debated Craig. It was rather unilluminating.

I've pretty much reached saturation point with live debates, and I'm not really sure what they accomplish. If Dawkins debates Craig, most of Craig's followers will say Craig "won," and vice versa.

I really doubt you'll see much in the way of "debunking" that will persuade anyone who really thinks Craig has a great argument. (Frankly, Dawkins wouldn't be my choice for that task anyway. I expect that Craig's "armchair philosophy" and Dawkins' empiricism would just have them talking past each other the whole time.)

And ultimately, famous atheists have to say "no" to a lot of debate requests. If Dawkins debates Craig, then Theologian X will demand that Dawkins debate him, or else he's a coward, etc. etc. Then Reverend Y will do the same. And so on.

If it entertains some people in the crowd, and amuses (or pays) the participants to do so, then sure, hold a debate. But I don't think it serves anyone's "message" or cause, unless the message is "buy my book!"

kedo1981

21st January 2010, 01:58 PM

Dawkins should debate this clown if the topic were science, biology or the scientific basis of evolution, not theology.

pizzadeliveryninja

21st January 2010, 04:53 PM

The problems with 'debates' are simple:

a) They assume some sort of balance between the respective positions argued. This isn't always the case: there is no serious evidence to support creationism against evolution.

b) This therefore implies some kind of equality between serious thought and religious make-believe. So someone who has spent their entire career studying a particular aspect of biology can find themselves opposed to the most ignoramous ****nut religious idiot trying to defend their views. This is isn't equal. Luckily, the latter has a defence mechanism:

c:) Whenever there is a debate along these lines, the religious types seem to have no qualms in simply lying. We see it amply amongst threads on the forum here - particularly the lie of omission, or quote-mining, usually combined with the appeal to authority. It is a simple fact - the religious will just lie to try and maintain their position and will lie with great skill and aplomb. We can call them out for this, but it isn't always effective.

Faced with a barrage of confidently asserted lies, no matter how effectively one debates the points, the atheist always looks like they are the aggressor - attacking the apparently harmless beliefs of the believer. If they are effective, it is unfair to belittle the believer. If they are not, then they are wrong.

In short, the ignorant are essentially in a win-win situation. There is no point in debating them. *

* In a public space. Obviously it is fun to observe the desperate lies that believers will go to on this forum to try and defend their credulity.

Robin

21st January 2010, 06:05 PM

Live debates are very good at settling the question of who is the better live debater, and little else.

Hux

22nd January 2010, 06:08 AM

I don't know about anyone else but I don't consider Dawkins, eloquent as he is, the public voice of atheism.

I will have no Gods.

CurtC

22nd January 2010, 06:51 AM

So why is it that Dawkins should debate Craig? It's not that he's up to some high standard of theology-- and Dawkins has debated those who are-- but precisely because a lot more people do know who William Lane Craig is and will pay attention to what is said, and because of the specific appeal that Craig does have.

I disagree. Dawkins is not an expert on theology, and Craig is a person who can spout apologetic BS at 90 miles an hour. Craig is pretty much a professional debater; he's good at the art form. And the art form has zero relevance to the truth of the point being debated.

The debate would look good on Craig's CV, no so much on Dawkins'.

Mister Agenda

22nd January 2010, 09:11 AM

Maybe Dawkins could send a student. If Craig defeats the student, he may then challenge the master. That's how it's done in the venerable Chop Sockey tradition.

Ron_Tomkins

22nd January 2010, 09:15 AM

Ideally, if he still were alive, I'd vote for Carl Sagan. The best advocate for science and critical thinking.

In fact, I have never actually seen a Sagan debate. That's something I'd be interested in.

Safe-Keeper

22nd January 2010, 09:26 AM

Brian Dunning had a nice podcast on the subject.

Should Science Debate Pseudoscience? (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4167)

Agree with his point, which echoes what others have said in this thread - debating pseudoscience just gives it credibility.

Maia

22nd January 2010, 10:26 AM

I disagree. Dawkins is not an expert on theology, and Craig is a person who can spout apologetic BS at 90 miles an hour. Craig is pretty much a professional debater; he's good at the art form. And the art form has zero relevance to the truth of the point being debated.

The debate would look good on Craig's CV, no so much on Dawkins'.

I don't know. I don't think the Hitchens debate was what anyone would call impressive. Craig has debated a good cross-section of current radical theologians besides John Shelby Spong (Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossman, Gerd Ludemann, Bart Ehrman) and he was soundly beaten on logic and facts every time. But again, the problem is that none of these people exactly has a lot of name recognition. Ehrman and Spong are probably the closest ones... so what exactly is going on here?

Okay, here are what I see as the biggest issues involved in Craig's debates:

1.) In actual theological debates on points of Biblical history or, well, theology, Craig is always used as a floor mop. He doesn't know what he's talking about; he just knows how to sound as if he does. When he's up against other theologians, it's just smackdown time and he is revealed as an idiot.

2.) But Craig does pretty well in debates against anybody like Hitchens, not only because he's a good debater, but because he does get across a message that people want to hear-- it's meaningful to them. Hitchens didn't come across as all that impressive in the debate, but everything he said was basically true. It simply was not said in a way that people would want to hear.

3.) So the truth or falsity of Craig's arguments for the existence of God were never the issue, because the minute anyone starts to take them apart, their sheer silliness is incredibly obvious. The same thing is true of his more convoluted theological arguments (for the historicity of the Resurrection, for example.)

Conclusion:

SOMEONE needs to debate Craig who can meet him on his own ground. The more I think about it, well, maybe Dawkins isn't the person to do it, because that ground is not the rational or logical appeal that Craig has; that's only the costume that Craig dresses up in (and it's a very effective costume at that.) Someone needs to get up there and confront him with the questions that will be very difficult for him to answer, challenging the moral authority that he pretends to have.

(sigh)

Okay, here's what could happen: Richard Dawkins and John Shelby Spong need to get together. I'm not totally happy with this-- I would MUCH prefer Stephen Jay Gould in place of Dawkins, but he's not exactly available-- but I think this thing could work. Dawkins could address the scientific side of all the questions, and JSS could take theology. They'd be an unbeatable combination. ;)

CurtC

22nd January 2010, 01:17 PM

In fact, I have never actually seen a Sagan debate. That's something I'd be interested in.

Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Sagan was savvy enough to see the folly in debating foolishness. I don't know whether he was ever presented with the opportunity, but I can't see him doing it.

There is nothing that I can see that would get accomplished in a debate with WLC. People who are believers think he does great. Even in that debate with Ehrman, the Christians think that WLC mopped the floor with Ehrman. People who aren't good at evaluating evidence are more likely to be religious, and they evaluate debates based on confident assertions whether they're well-reasoned or not.

Maia

22nd January 2010, 02:07 PM

Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Sagan was savvy enough to see the folly in debating foolishness. I don't know whether he was ever presented with the opportunity, but I can't see him doing it.

There is nothing that I can see that would get accomplished in a debate with WLC. People who are believers think he does great. Even in that debate with Ehrman, the Christians think that WLC mopped the floor with Ehrman. People who aren't good at evaluating evidence are more likely to be religious, and they evaluate debates based on confident assertions whether they're well-reasoned or not.

I just think that nobody has really tried to come at a WLC debate from the right angle yet, and I'd like to see someone try. Dawkins could do a better job of taking him on factually than anybody has managed to do yet, but there's another factor. John Shelby Spong is the best person I can think of to tackle this aspect, and he could do it very well-- I've seen him speak in this way. It just wasn't the type of ground he covered in the actual Craig/Spong debate.

Here's a sample of how it might go...

Topic: Does God Exist?

Craig: The Cosmological Argument, The Teleological Argument, The Moral Argument,
The Resurrection of Jesus, The Immediate Experience of God, the same 5 things he always brings up in every single debate.

(Grins smarmily at crowd. They beam back.)

Dawkins: Snarkily demolishes every scrap of anything that could be remotely called a scientific basis for Craig's assertions (and I DO think this is important, because almost half the claims are based on this.)

(crowd murmurs angrily, but still in that self-congratulatory mood. Besides, Dawkins is snarking around with that smirky look on his face, and they'd all like to throw things at him. And no, evidence isn't enough here. Craig is widely known as the "world's smartest living Christian." Could somebody insert that facepalm pic here?)

Spong: Deals very briefly with the Resurrection argument. He can use Craig as a floor mop on this one, but the audience doesn't really care, because they don't want to know what the facts are anyway, so he doesn't spend much time here.

Craig: Says some snooty things, and then.... falls into the trap! "Oh, but what about the moral argument?"

Spong: MWAH HA! I think a good beginning would be... "You clearly don't know anything about Jesus of Nazareth, because he would have a very hard time recognizing anything that you teach." (Examples could follow for several days STRAIGHT here; suffice it to say that Craig's veneer of sweet reasonableness is very thin indeed.) Correctly accuses Craig of exploiting the appearance of logic, evidence, and actually living in the twenty-first century when he is stuck in the Stone Age. Moves in for the KILL!!!

(looks at audience)

"Do you want to understand the immediate experience of God? You can either follow this message of hatred, prejudice, intolerance, irrationality, and fear, or you can answer the challenge Jesus issued-- living fully, loving wastefully, and being all that you can be. But you cannot hang onto superstition and childish beliefs. The choice is yours."

:)

I don't know what the audience would actually do, but they would have some food for thought. It might be better to not give them anything to throw. Craig's head might also explode.

pnerd

12th June 2010, 01:35 PM

I might be wrong, but I think Sam Harris would be a better candidate to debate William Lane Craig.

noreligion

12th June 2010, 01:49 PM

Now, I have my problems with Dawkins, but I hardly think that's the reason why he isn't debating any of the above. For better or worse, he's the public voice of atheism these days. :rolleyes: And a thought came to me... it might actually be a good thing if he DID debate Craig, anyway.

Yes, it is always the correct thing to do for a scientist. Debate a creationist (Lane is a creotard) and give onlookers the impression that creationism deserves to be debated as if it is a valid science.

paximperium

12th June 2010, 01:52 PM

I might be wrong, but I think Sam Harris would be a better candidate to debate William Lane Craig.
Uh...I really really don't think that's a good idea.

pnerd

12th June 2010, 01:54 PM

Uh...I really really don't think that's a good idea.
Could you please elaborate a bit as to why you don't think it's a good idea?

paximperium

12th June 2010, 02:01 PM

Could you please elaborate a bit as to why you don't think it's a good idea?
While I like some of what Harris writes, he has massive holes in his knowledge base concerning biological science, theology and especially philosophy.

His last major "foot in the mouth moment" was during the TED conference with his (I'm paraphrasing) "Science can answer moral questions" debacle...which was basically wrong and which showed that he wasn't even aware of the entire field of work of ethical philosophers. It ignored a large number of Ethical Philosophers and Neuroscientists who have already are doing great research into the human brain and how it makes moral decisions.

I think he is an eloquent writer, I don't believe that he's would be great against the master of apolegetics like Craig.

Brainache

12th June 2010, 03:11 PM

If WLC is going to argue along theological lines, then I don't think Dawkins would be a good choice.

I'd suggest someone like Stephen Fry. A comedian who I'm sure must have done a bit of debating in his student days.

Or what about a Lawyer? Geoffrey Robertson?

noreligion

12th June 2010, 03:25 PM

While I like some of what Harris writes, he has massive holes in his knowledge base concerning biological science, theology and especially philosophy.

His last major "foot in the mouth moment" was during the TED conference with his (I'm paraphrasing) "Science can answer moral questions" debacle...which was basically wrong and which showed that he wasn't even aware of the entire field of work of ethical philosophers. It ignored a large number of Ethical Philosophers and Neuroscientists who have already are doing great research into the human brain and how it makes moral decisions.

I think he is an eloquent writer, I don't believe that he's would be great against the master of apolegetics like Craig.

I am not sure I'm following you. If neuroscientists (which Harris is) are doing research into how the brain makes moral decisions, doesn't that mean science (pay attention to the part after neuro) can answer moral questions?

paximperium

12th June 2010, 04:42 PM

I am not sure I'm following you. If neuroscientists (which Harris is) are doing research into how the brain makes moral decisions, doesn't that mean science (pay attention to the part after neuro) can answer moral questions?
PZ Myers and Massimo Pigliucci are more eloquent than I am. I especially recommend Massimo's essay.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/sam_harris_v_sean_carroll.php
http://www.scientificblogging.com/rationally_speaking/about_sam_harris%E2%80%99_claim_science_can_answer _moral_questions

Robin

12th June 2010, 04:50 PM

I am not sure I'm following you. If neuroscientists (which Harris is) are doing research into how the brain makes moral decisions, doesn't that mean science (pay attention to the part after neuro) can answer moral questions?
It would depend upon what is meant by answering moral questions.

Even if scientists completely understood the mechanism whereby we make moral decisions that would not imply that we could develop a hypothesis about whether something is right or wrong.

But it could help us understand what we mean by right and wrong.

Resume

12th June 2010, 06:48 PM

Lord Muck oGentry

12th June 2010, 08:08 PM

I am not sure I'm following you. If neuroscientists (which Harris is) are doing research into how the brain makes moral decisions, doesn't that mean science (pay attention to the part after neuro) can answer moral questions?

Well, no, it doesn't.

The brain doesn't make moral decisions or any other decisions. We make them. It is not even wrong to suggest that the brain makes decisions: it is nonsense.

Complexity

13th June 2010, 08:21 AM

I'm not in favor of anyone debating these cretins.

I think they are unworthy.

I also don't find debates to be very useful.

pnerd

28th June 2010, 10:47 PM

I just think that nobody has really tried to come at a WLC debate from the right angle yet, and I'd like to see someone try.
.
Has anyone seen the debate between John Shook (http://shook.pragmatism.org/) and Craig? I think Craig got his butt kicked in that debate.

Part 1:

Wf9-vwnzqOo

Part 2:

HVjUlSvtgtw

Note: you can also find other youtube videos that divided the debate into smaller parts. Those with slower internet connection might want to watch those.
.

Chris L

28th June 2010, 11:26 PM

I tend to agree with the idea that a debate is a waste of time. The Woo Masters do not care about, let alone know the facts. The debate would mostly be a PR contest where the Woo Master is most at home.

As an example, I give you my own personal favorite master of woo, Richard C. Hoagland. A few months back, Hoagie got this idea that Phobos is actually an ancient space ship. He further claimed that an ESA probe that flew by the moon provided iron clad data for this. One of the places he made this claim was on an Internet radio show called "The Unexplained". A few days later, this same show had on the chief scientist at ESA who was heading up the mission. He of course refuted everything that Hoagie said, but he just didn't come off as well. While the scientist had the facts, Hoagland was good at the PR end of things (his only real core competency really). So yes, I think debating Woo Masters is a waste of time and effort.

Chris L

28th June 2010, 11:28 PM

Oh here's a link to the radio site, so you can compare the two yourself. http://www.theunexplained.tv/

Cosmic Roy

29th June 2010, 03:43 AM

.
Has anyone seen the debate between John Shook (http://shook.pragmatism.org/) and Craig? I think Craig got his butt kicked in that debate.

Part 1:

Wf9-vwnzqOo

Part 2:

HVjUlSvtgtw

Note: you can also find other youtube videos that divided the debate into smaller parts. Those with slower internet connection might want to watch those.
.

Thanks for the links, pnerd. I agree that John Shook gave a more satisfying performance than others who have debated Craig. But I'm surprised that Craig is so often allowed to get away with some of the things he says. I'd really like to see Sam Harris debate with him: Harris's laid-back confidence would be the perfect antidote to Craig's smarmy verbosity.

Here are the parts of Craig's presentation that I'd like to see addressed:

1. When discussing the origin of the universe, I've heard Craig chide his debaters for attempting to explain it with regard to the scientifically-determined theories of this universe. Craig disallows argument in that direction because, he says, 'pre'-big bang, there was no space or time in which forces could act. And yet he apparently feels that the ideas of cause and effect at which he has arrived during his anthropocentric, macroscopic existence on this planet can be applied with validity to the same (non)arena from which he prohibits materialistic physics. This is despite the fact that causality is not a simple subject even within this universe. I want to see somebody bring him up on this brazen hypocrisy.

2. After stating that the existence of the universe requires a cause outside of current physics, he goes on to claim that the cause must be immaterial and personal. Immaterial, because it necessarily existed outside of the universe; personal, because the only immaterial things are abstract things, like numbers, and minds. Minds! Why is Craig consistently able to smuggle this absurdity into the debate unchallenged? Why does nobody ask Craig the last time he saw a mind that existed independently of a material body? At least in the debate linked to by pnerd, Shook highlighted the illogic of proposing an entity that is both conscious and changeless; but he didn't press that obvious weak point at all; it was the subject of just a single sentence.

3. Without fail, Craig uses the idea humans can apprehend an objective set of moral principles. He claims that, without a god, there can be no objective basis for morality, and that, if morality is merely subjective, Hitler's Final Solution is morally unimpeachable; similarly, we have no grounds for judging predatory paedophiles or psychopaths. Craig's debaters so often get drawn into semantic arguments about 'objective' and subjective', 'relative' and 'absolute'. I am yet to hear a debater concede Craig's point about the lack of objective morality, and go on to say that it doesn't matter. The answer to Craig's question, "What do we do with the psychopath or rapist?" is easy: we condemn them. We don't need to appeal to an objective morality for this: we just acknowledge that the guilty party is condemned by the consensual judgment of society. Those actions which undermine the kind of society in which we want to live are the actions that we consider to be immoral. We are conditioned - whether biologically or culturally - to think that way.

pnerd

29th June 2010, 04:51 AM

Thanks for the links, pnerd. I agree that John Shook gave a more satisfying performance than others who have debated Craig.
You're welcome, Cosmic Roy. I think Victor Stenger also did a pretty good job in his debate against Craig.

I'm surprised that Craig is so often allowed to get away with some of the things he says.
This is how he gets away with it: Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop)
His opponents just don't get enough time in a debate to counter all of his BS.

I'd really like to see Sam Harris debate with him: Harris's laid-back confidence would be the perfect antidote to Craig's smarmy verbosity.
That's why I also would like to see Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett debate Craig.
.

noreligion

29th June 2010, 05:10 AM

He claims that, without a god, there can be no objective basis for morality,
I wonder, if god was shown to WLC not to exist and it was convincing to him, would he suddenly become immoral? If so, those are not morals but doing good to avoid punishment/condemnation. Guess that means WLC really is an immoral bastard.

Cosmic Roy

29th June 2010, 06:44 AM

You're welcome, Cosmic Roy. I think Victor Stenger also did a pretty good job in his debate against Craig.

Ah yes, I think I remember that one. I half recall that Stenger pointed out the internal inconsistency of an omnipotent god having desires - such as the desire to create and be loved by humanity. I don't remember Craig giving a satisfactory reply though.

This is how he gets away with it: Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop)
His opponents just don't get enough time in a debate to counter all of his BS.

That's a good phrase, and I certainly agree that it applies to William Lane Craig. But the meat of his argument seems to be the same from one debate to the next. Despite the great rate of bollocks spewed by the man, its predictability - reliable almost to the word! - should prevent a prepared debater from becoming overwhelmed.

That's why I also would like to see Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett debate Craig.
.

I'm quite sure that Sam Harris would be efficient and ruthless in exposing the unjustified assertions that Craig conceals in his blather. I'd like to think that Daniel Dennett would be too, but in a debate with Dinesh D'Souza (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4), after the prepared opening statements, Dennett seemed to me to become quite blustery and shallow in his rebuttals. Being an admirer of Dennett, a scorner of D'Souza, and something of a junke for these debates, I was quite disappointed by the performance.

Cosmic Roy

29th June 2010, 07:00 AM

I wonder, if god was shown to WLC not to exist and it was convincing to him, would he suddenly become immoral? If so, those are not morals but doing good to avoid punishment/condemnation. Guess that means WLC really is an immoral bastard.

In fairness to Craig, his idea of the relationship between humanity, morals and God goes beyond one of punishment and reward. As I understand it, he does not think that it is necessary to be a believer in order to live a moral life, nor does he think that theologians necessarily have a greater understanding of morality. Rather, he claims that "morality is engraved on Man's heart" (those may not be his precise words, but that's the sentiment, anyway). Why the engraver must have been God rather than the same millions of years of evolution that shaped the social practices of other animals, I don't know.

Craig seems to accept the fact of evolution, yet still draws a boundary around homo sapiens, declaring that the other animals are not moral agents. Who knows at what point in our evolutionary history he would consider humanity to have gained the ability to perceive objective morality? And how is it that God's objective morality seems to exist on a continuum with the behaviours of other social species?

pnerd

29th June 2010, 02:26 PM

That's a good phrase, and I certainly agree that it applies to William Lane Craig. But the meat of his argument seems to be the same from one debate to the next. Despite the great rate of bollocks spewed by the man, its predictability - reliable almost to the word! - should prevent a prepared debater from becoming overwhelmed.
That's true. He uses the same five "arguments" almost all the time. His opponents should be better prepared. Hitchens was particularly ill-prepared in my opinion.

Rather, he claims that "morality is engraved on Man's heart" (those may not be his precise words, but that's the sentiment, anyway). Why the engraver must have been God rather than the same millions of years of evolution that shaped the social practices of other animals, I don't know.
My thoughts exactly. Why is god's standard of morality any more "objective" than the one we possibly got through evolution?
Have you read this: Slaughter of the Canaanites (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767)
What he essentially said there is that genocide is immoral unless god commands it. So how can "thou shalt not kill" be an "objective" standard of morality if it is "subject" to who commits (or commands) it?

Craig seems to accept the fact of evolution
In the debate against Hitchens he clearly said that he doesn't think the evidence for evolution is good enough and that's why he's agnostic about evolution :eye-poppi . But I have read that he often shifts his position regarding evolution. Maybe he accepts it when it suits him.

A Christian Sceptic

29th June 2010, 02:41 PM

Cosmic Roy

29th June 2010, 02:55 PM

I think it would be cool if people like Dawkins and maybe someone like Francis Collins would record themselves having just a lively conversation while drinking their drinks of choice. Not a debate, not an argument, but a discussion. Like people with differing opinions and beliefs who are friends or peers usually have. Have it structured however - maybe a random topic picked out of a magic hat - then they can give their opinions, ask questions, swig some brew, and just shoot the ****. :) Have any of these "experts" ever done anything like this? If so I'd love a link to it.

Here's a debate that might be more like what you're after (at least in the later parts, after the formal presentations): Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+shermer+vs+dinesh+d%2 7souza&aq=f)

D'Souza's voice and mannerisms grate on me something awful (I know, I'm terribly prejudiced), but generally I find Shermer very pleasing.

Cosmic Roy

29th June 2010, 03:02 PM

That's true. He uses the same five "arguments" almost all the time. His opponents should be better prepared. Hitchens was particularly ill-prepared in my opinion.

Yes, and in my experience, that's usually the way with Hitchens. Since the novelty of his vitriol wore off, I find his presentations to be often rather rambling and incoherent, with some gems thrown in here and there.

My thoughts exactly. Why is god's standard of morality any more "objective" than the one we possibly got through evolution?
Have you read this: Slaughter of the Canaanites (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767)
What he essentially said there is that genocide is immoral unless god commands it. So how can "thou shalt not kill" be an "objective" standard of morality if it is "subject" to who commits (or commands) it?

Thanks for the link. I'd heard him say something similar previously, but it's good to have it laid out in detail. It seems like some quite impressive doublethink is required to square God's message with his actions. The 'good' that describes God, and the 'good' that describes his prescribed morality are surely merely homophones!

A Christian Sceptic

29th June 2010, 03:11 PM

Here's a debate that might be more like what you're after (at least in the later parts, after the formal presentations): Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+shermer+vs+dinesh+d%2 7souza&aq=f)

D'Souza's voice and mannerisms grate on me something awful (I know, I'm terribly prejudiced), but generally I find Shermer very pleasing.

Thanks. Can't wait to watch it.

pnerd

29th June 2010, 03:11 PM

A Christian Sceptic

29th June 2010, 03:14 PM

My thoughts exactly. Why is god's standard of morality any more "objective" than the one we possibly got through evolution?
Have you read this: Slaughter of the Canaanites (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767)
What he essentially said there is that genocide is immoral unless god commands it. So how can "thou shalt not kill" be an "objective" standard of morality if it is "subject" to who commits (or commands) it?

Wow - I find this guys defense of that passage about as abhorrent as the passage. I've heard variations of his defense throughout the years. I think it's one of the more popular explanations.

A Christian Sceptic

29th June 2010, 03:15 PM

.
Have you seen the discussion between Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath? You can find it here (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Richard+Dawkins%2C+Alister+Mc Grath&aq=f).

Nope. Thanks. Looks like I'll have some interesting videos to watch tonight.

noreligion

29th June 2010, 04:10 PM

In fairness to Craig, his idea of the relationship between humanity, morals and God goes beyond one of punishment and reward. As I understand it, he does not think that it is necessary to be a believer in order to live a moral life, nor does he think that theologians necessarily have a greater understanding of morality. Rather, he claims that "morality is engraved on Man's heart" (those may not be his precise words, but that's the sentiment, anyway). Why the engraver must have been God rather than the same millions of years of evolution that shaped the social practices of other animals, I don't know.

Craig seems to accept the fact of evolution, yet still draws a boundary around homo sapiens, declaring that the other animals are not moral agents. Who knows at what point in our evolutionary history he would consider humanity to have gained the ability to perceive objective morality? And how is it that God's objective morality seems to exist on a continuum with the behaviours of other social species?
If morals were written on our hearts by god and again god were disproven to the satisfaction of WLC that would mean there were no morals written on our hearts and he would become an evil immoral bastard. Why are you trying to defend an IDiot?

A Christian Sceptic

29th June 2010, 08:36 PM

I find it odd that Richard Dawkins will only debate Bishops, Cardinals, Popes or Archbishops. Are those denominations with those titles the only "True Christians" according to Richard Dawkins?

On another note - groovy music. Kind of a Grand Theft Auto feel to it. :)

Cosmic Roy

30th June 2010, 01:13 AM

If morals were written on our hearts by god and again god were disproven to the satisfaction of WLC that would mean there were no morals written on our hearts and he would become an evil immoral bastard. Why are you trying to defend an IDiot?

I'm not sure that that follows. Let's consider another human capacity that is likely acquired by a mix of biological hardwiring and social conditioning: language. Imagine that I argue that humans' linguistic ability is intrinsic, while Craig argues (for the sake of this point only) that people merely apprehend a God-given method of communication that exists whether we do or not.

In the case of morality, Craig recognises that the majority of humans choose their actions based on an internal moral compass. I think that the compass is a vague one, derived from millions of years of biological evolution, thousands of years of social evolution, and a lifetime's worth of more immediate cultural conditioning. Craig thinks that the compass is reliable, universal and absolute, and was installed by God.

I don't think that Craig's loss of belief in God would cause his moral compass to suddenly fail any more than it would cause him to forget his vocabulary or lose his ability to understand grammar. Indeed, he may find that freedom from the need to fawn over his ugly deity would let him see the biblical stories of genocide in the Levant in a less sympathetic light.

Why are you trying to defend an IDiot?

I'm not trying to defend anybody in particular. I simply wanted to represent accurately my understanding of William Lane Craig's argument. I think that your suggestion that sudden loss of faith should cause a person to act immoraly (or, rather, amorally) does follow from some people's arguments. The people I mean are those who can't imagine there are any motivations to do right other than fear of punishment and hope of reward. That's not a viewpoint that I think can be ascribed to William Lane Craig.

pnerd

30th June 2010, 02:39 AM

I'm not sure that that follows. Let's consider another human capacity that is likely acquired by a mix of biological hardwiring and social conditioning: language. Imagine that I argue that humans' linguistic ability is intrinsic, while Craig argues (for the sake of this point only) that people merely apprehend a God-given method of communication that exists whether we do or not.
.
The question is, how does he know that there's a 'God-given method of communication' and it's not 'a mix of biological hardwiring and social conditioning'? His first premise in his moral "argument" (namely, "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.") is very weak in my opinion.

I'm not trying to defend anybody in particular. I simply wanted to represent accurately my understanding of William Lane Craig's argument. I think that your suggestion that sudden loss of faith should cause a person to act immoraly (or, rather, amorally) does follow from some people's arguments. The people I mean are those who can't imagine there are any motivations to do right other than fear of punishment and hope of reward. That's not a viewpoint that I think can be ascribed to William Lane Craig.
.
I think you are correct about his viewpoint about morality. But his moral argument has been misunderstood by many; I also misunderstood it at first.
.

Cosmic Roy

30th June 2010, 03:46 AM

.
The question is, how does he know that there's a 'God-given method of communication' and it's not 'a mix of biological hardwiring and social conditioning'? His first premise in his moral "argument" (namely, "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.") is very weak in my opinion.

Quite. As far as I can tell it would be impossible to distinguish between the scenarios. Craig's assumption is, I agree, unsupported. In fact I have difficulty accepting that someone who places as much emphasis on logic and deductive reasoning as Craig does (or pretends to, at least) can have overlooked that unjustified premise for so long. I suspect that he ignores the assumption merely for the sake of his conclusion. It's a flaw in his reasoning that I would like to see exposed in a debate.